Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 21STCV45883, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21STCV45883, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45883 Hearing Date: March 5, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: March 5, 2024

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV45883

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Mary E. Evans v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Mary E. Evans

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, County of Los Angeles

¿¿¿ ¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: April 18, 2024

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

¿¿

Tentative Rulings: (1) ARGUE. Plaintiff needs to provide details in oral argument as to the chronology of events giving rise to the need to amend a suit filed in 2021 at this late date. Given the looming trial date, the Court may give Plaintiff the option of continuing the trial with a granting of the motion, or keeping the trial date and the Court denying the motion

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

On December 16, 2023, Plaintiff, Mary Evans (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, County of Los Angeles (“County”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Trespass; and (2) Negligence. The Complaint is based on the following facts: On August 6, 2020 Plaintiff was informed via email from a staff person at the office of Los Angeles County’s Fourth District that there was no problem with the landscaping at the Sunnyridge Property. Plaintiff contends that the email indicated that the Sunnyridge Property was in full compliance with the County’s fire department requirements, and that there was “nothing to do at [that] time.” Nonetheless, Plaintiff asserts that starting on August 19, 2020, Plaintiff’s property was damaged by Defendants’ improper and unwarranted removal of a significant amount of plant material, professionally irrigated landscaping that consisted in large part of a green privacy barrier comprised of a row of plant materials with root crowns inside Evans’ property existing for the primary purpose of visual privacy barrier and erosion control for the Sunnyridge Property.

Plaintiff asserts that the property damage to her landscaping severely damaged the market value of the Sunnyridge Property and will cost in excess of $25,000 to replace.

After a procedural stipulation to postpone the hearing on this motion pending settlement and mediation discussions, Plaintiff now moves forward on her Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and file First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On November 13, 2023, Defendant County filed an opposition. On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿

A. Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff asserts that the parties spent several months attempting to reach an informal resolution to Plaintiff’s claims – all to no avail. However, Plaintiff contends that when discovery was reinitiated, and Defendant served supplemental discovery responses, it became apparent to Plaintiff that the facts existed to support the newly sought causes of action. (McGonigle Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff argues that that there is still sufficient time or Defendant to file a responsive pleading before trial, the Complaint does not add significantly different allegations, and the amendments are essential additions to the allegations previously set forth. Plaintiff further notes that Defendant has not yet deposed Plaintiff, and thus will have a full opportunity to seek her testimony regarding the new allegations and claims.

In opposition, County argues that Plaintiff’s new allegations are barred by the Doctrine of Variance. County argues that Plaintiff’s Government Code tort claim submitted prior to filing this lawsuit identified a single incident and made no mention or reference to any condemnation, planning, or continuing use of Sunnyridge Property by Defendant. Specifically, County points out the claim presentation requirement, that the facts alleged in the complaint, including the damages alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff, must be consistent with the facts within the government claim. County argues that Plaintiff never submitted a new or amended Government Code claim relating to the proposed new causes of action proves they are unrelated and a separate claim.

County next argues that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is precluded and should not be permitted because Plaintiff has known about her claims since no later than February 2021, almost two years ago, and has failed to seek leave to amend her Complaint until now, on the eve of trial.

Here, Plaintiff arguably has not satisfied her burden under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).) Although Plaintiff has included a copy of the proposed FAC, and has specified by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, Plaintiff has not adequately shown what caused the delay in making the new allegations. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff blames the delayed receipt of County’s supplemental responses. However, nowhere in Plaintiff’s moving or responding papers does Plaintiff indicate WHEN she received said supplemental responses. The County suggests Plaintiff could have brought these additional claims as early as three years ago (February 2021). As such, the Court requires oral argument as to what caused the delay in bringing these amendments. If Plaintiff has had the supplemental discovery responses for years, and is just now seeking leave to file an amendment, the Court will be more inclined to deny this motion.

In context of the Government Claim Presentation requirements, Plaintiff asserts in her reply brief that the facts asserted in the FAC are consistent with those in the originally filed Complaint, and that she satisfies the claim presentation requirement. If this Court grants this motion, The County would be entitled to demur to the FAC, and conduct analysis and possibly discovery as to whether Plaintiff’s new causes of action meet the Government claims presentation requirements. A hearing on a motion for leave to amend is not the preferred vehicle for the Court engaging in this analysis. Accordingly, the Court would postpone the trial again if it determines to grant the motion for leave to amend.

Lastly, this Court notes that County argues it will face substantial prejudice if this case were to move forward as it would provide County only a matter of days to conduct an inquiry into Plaintiff’s additional causes of action. The Court also notes that the parties have already stipulated once to continue trial and all related trial dates, and that the new date is barely five weeks away. Certainly, if this Court were to allow an amended filing at this stage, a further trial continuance would be required to enable the County time to demur and potentially for the parties to conduct discovery as to the new causes of action.